From: Steve Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 20:56:52 PST
Hi Joe,
>Most people don't have a feel for the state of
>technology that the common man lived with in the years
>just before that war.
True, but...
>In 1942 the US Army was still buying horse drawn
>wagons, the German army still had horse cavalry.
This has nothing to do with technology, everything to do with politics.
The Cavalry was still strong politically and refused to go down without
a fight. As a frontline force they proved to be of dubious value.
However, in Russia Cavalry was a rather large plus as it could go where
vehicles could not and without "refueling", mechanical break downs,
detection, etc. However, these roles were more or less relegated to
recon, disruption, partisan fighting, and in a few cases large scale
infiltration prior to offensive breakthrough.
The use of horses as movers of equipment and supplies was standard for
nearly all nations except the US and Commonwealth, then around 1944 the
Soviets (thanks in large part to Lend Lease). The Germans, on the other
hand, went backwards due to frontline losses, bombings, fuel supply
constriction, etc.
Remember, someone had to pay for mechanization. During peace time this
was a hard pill to swallow for people just pulling their butts out of the
Great Depression. The Germans didn't even kick mobilize their economy
until 1943 for this very reason! One of the biggest reasons they lost
the war.
>My
>copy of the 1939 Signal Corps Manual has horse mounted
>messengers listed along with the instructions on how
>to handle Carrier Pigeons and where to set up the
>roost box.
This was not something limited to Germans. Radios were VERY rare at this
point in time all the way to the end of the war with nearly all nations
except the US and the Commonwealth (1944/45, not earlier). Therefore
troops were taught all sorts of "primative" ways of communicating when
radios and field phones were not available. However, in practice carrier
pigeons were hardly used during the war.
>My 1943 Carpentry Manual has an
>illustration of a man using a Broad Ax to square a
>beam! And he's wearing his steel pot and canteen.
>How many 1943 farm tractors have you seen that had
>steel wheels? And how many new recruits walked to the
>induction station, not because they didn't have a car,
>but because that was how it ws normally done then?
This was more true for Europeans and Asians than Americans (Canadians
too?). One of the reasons US mechanization was so successful was that
more often than that some grunt in the vehicle knew how to get it to work
again. This was less of the case for Western European countries, even
less for the Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. And Asia?
Feeeeeergeddaboutit :-)
>Hardly anyone had a TV set, and
>most couldn't afford a radio.
True, but only because TV was simply a novelty invention at the time. It
did not do much of anything until the late 1940s. Radios were fairly
common though. And if you didn't have a radio, chances are you knew
someone who did and therefore got information through them.
The above are all reasons for why mechanization was not difficult to
obtain and maintain, but it doesn't have much to do with technology. The
Germans had guided AA missles, man portable AA missles, guided bombs,
infra red scopes for assault rifles and tanks, jet engines in the 1930s,
etc. just for example. Cost was a major factor for their development
being hindered more than anything.
Just some info from a history geek :-)
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 13:24:56 PDT